Tuesday, July 09, 2013

Hezbollah dying in Syria

From JPost, 7 July 2013, by Ariel Ben Solomon:

             Supporters of Hezbollah and relatives gesture during a funeral.
Supporters of Hezbollah and relatives give the Nazi salute during a funeral. Photo: REUTERS
 
Amid the mounting death toll of Hezbollah operatives in Syria, a delegation of Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon has asked the Shi’ite group’s leadership to stop sending operatives to fight for Syrian President Bashar Assad, pan-Arabic daily Asharq Alawsat reported Sunday.
The London-based paper quoted a source familiar with the situation as saying that the increasing number of casualties in Syria, including some senior commanders, has raised concerns among Lebanese Shi’ites, especially those from Baalbek, who were part of a delegation to visit Hezbollah Shura Council member Muhammad Yazbek and demand a stop to sending their men to Syria.
The delegation reportedly argued that it had been proud to send its sons to fight in the 2006 Second Lebanon War against Israel and in other wars against the Jewish state, but saw the deployment of their children to defend the Syrian regime as “shameful” and that it was unacceptable to embroil their men in a war in which they had no interest at all.
The source added that Hezbollah was facing the dilemma of being unable to withdraw its forces at present.
As a result, the source continued, several meetings were held at the highest levels of the party to discuss the matter and it was agreed that a delegation would be sent to Iran to explain to the leadership there that the party was no longer able to bear the burden of supporting the Syrian government alone by sending fighters from Lebanon. It planned to urge Iran to send more fighters.
The source also noted the rise of Hezbollah operatives participating in the fighting in Syria. Following Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s visit to Tehran and Damascus three months ago, more than 20 units were sent to Syria from the Bekaa by Hezbollah, each battalion consisting of approximately 100 men.

Monday, July 08, 2013

Israeli Internet startups poised for the spotlight after $1 billion sale of Waze

Paul Sakuma, File/Associated Press - FILE - In this March 15, 2012 file photo, Ben Gleitzman uses a traffic and navigation app called Waze as he drives to work in Menlo Park, Calif. The record-breaking sale of Israeli navigation company Waze to Google earlier this month told the world what Israel’s tech experts have known for years: The mideast country is now a major player in Internet innovation.

JERUSALEM — The billion-dollar sale of navigation company Waze to Google may finally be putting Israel on the map as a major player in consumer Internet innovation.
Israel’s high-tech sector has been dominated by firms that made products for other businesses, like computer chips or communications gear. But in recent years Internet and mobile companies have emerged as the majority of Israeli startups, and many have found success in the global market.
... Nir Zohar, the president and chief operating officer of Wix [said]
“I would assume that we will find more foreign investors coming to Israel to invest in Israeli entrepreneurs.”

Wix, a personal website company, filed last month for a $75 million initial public offering the United States, just as Google was wrapping up its $1.03 billion purchase of Waze.
Foreign investors are beginning to take notice.
Israeli consumer firms myheritage.com, a genealogy site, and Fiverr.com, an online marketplace for creative services, received major backing last year from Accel Partners and Bessemer, two leading American venture firms.
Veterans of the Israeli Internet startup scene say that Israeli companies are known for their creativity and international outlook, so the move into the fast-growing world of smartphone apps and consumer websites has been relatively easy.
“Because we don’t have a local market, we go on the international market from day one,” said Uri Adoni of Jerusalem Venture Partners, one of the leading tech investment firms in Israel.
Unlike in larger countries, he said, Israel’s small size means that its startups naturally target places like the United States instead of the domestic market. With products ready-made for international use, they are attractive to overseas venture capitalists.
Experts say Israeli companies are accustomed to taking unconventional risks in building their products.
“There’s always a special Israeli take, and the take is ‘Let’s go crazy, let’s bring something that’s completely off the charts,’” said Michal Adam of the IVC Research Center, which tracks statistics on Israeli venture capital.
In the case of Waze, that meant relying on the app’s user base in order to help build its maps because it lacked the vast amounts of data and satellite imagery of a company like Google. Thanks to its crowdsourcing feature, Waze’s mapping service provides its user community with real-time information on traffic conditions, accidents and speed traps that standard GPS services have struggled to gather. The service has also generated a loyal user base.
The Israeli way, Adam said, is “doing things simple when you need a complicated result because you don’t have the money and the resources.”
Roughly three-quarters of Israeli startups provide mobile or Internet services, according to IVC. Just five years ago, the number was below 50 percent.
After bottoming out in 2009 during the global financial crisis, American venture capitalists have steadily ramped up investments in Israel. Last year, according to the National Venture Capital Association in Arlington, Va., they pumped almost $85 million of equity into Israeli Internet companies, the highest amount since the global financial crisis five years ago.Overall, Israel is the world’s largest destination for high tech venture capital after Silicon Valley.
Yossi Vardi, a leading figure in the Israeli tech scene, said the Internet boom is also a result of natural growth. “Every major (acquisition) creates a wave of angels and new investors,” he said. “Angels” are the individuals who make early investments in high-risk companies.
Vardi helped pave the way for the current crop of Internet firms as an original investor in ICQ, the forerunner to modern instant messaging services. When ICQ was sold to AOL for $400 million in 1998, Vardi took his profits from the deal and invested in more than 100 other tech companies, about half of them consumer oriented like ICQ. Many of those companies, like answers.com and media software maker FoxyTunes, added success stories to the Israeli consumer market.
Vardi expects that the Waze sale will spark a similar round of growth.
Along with attracting new investors, each successful new company creates a new supply of experienced employees who may go on to form startups of their own.
“In three years, there are going to be a lot of people who are employees of these companies who are going to go out into the market,” said Micha Kaufman, the CEO of Fiverr.com. Alexa, an Amazon-owned web analytics service, ranks Fiverr among the 200 most visited websites in the world.
... the success of Waze generates optimism among Israeli Internet companies. “All the press that all these exits are getting ... creates confidence for future buyers,” said Yaron Carni, a veteran investor and head of the Tel Aviv Angels Group.

Sunday, July 07, 2013

Morsi’s downfall is a blessing for Egypt and the Arab world

From JPost, 6 July 2013, by Zvi Mazel*:
For many in the Arab world, the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood was an unmitigated disaster. For 85 years, the Brotherhood plotted and fought throughout the Arab countries – Mandatory Palestine included – using every available means, terror included, to achieve their goal: the establishment of Islamic regimes based on the Shari’a in all Arab nations and ultimately, the restoration of the caliphate.
Their radical ideology, tainted with a hefty dose of anti-Semitism, gave rise to even more extremist movements such as al-Qaida, al-Gama’a al- Islamiyya, Jihad and many others. It was to fight this ever-present threat that secular dictatorships were born.
With these totalitarian regimes toppled by the Arab Spring, the Brotherhood suddenly found itself on the brink of achieving all it had been striving for. In Egypt and in Tunisia, the Brothers were elected through free elections and handed the opportunity to rule and steer their countries towards a brighter future.
But they failed to deliver. Unwilling to understand that the people wanted a better life, they forgot all about the economy and focused on imposing their brand of radical Islam. While the economic situation went from bad to worse, they were busy drafting an Islamic constitution severely curtailing civil rights and discriminating against women. In Egypt, President Mohamed Morsi even tried to grant himself powers far exceeding those of the overthrown Hosni Mubarak – a measure which led to such an outcry that he had to back down.
Egypt was drawing closer and closer to becoming a Islamic dictatorship, and this was a wake-up call to many Egyptians. They understood they had to act quickly to prevent the Brotherhood from infiltrating and taking over the security apparatus, the police and the army – at which point it would be too late.
Morsi’s downfall is undoubtedly a blessing for Egypt; it brings renewed hope to a deeply divided nation in the throes of an unparalleled crisis.
However, appointing the president of the Supreme Constitutional Court as temporary president, setting up an interim national unity government and holding presidential elections are only a first step in the road to get the revolution back on track. Though there was a military coup, it was in answer to the will of the people, and army chief Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi made it clear that he had no intention to emulate Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, who had tried to rule the country and failed.
It was the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) headed by Tantawi that made it possible for the Brotherhood to achieve its aims and set up a democratically elected regime, as it neglected the economy – a neglect which grew under the leadership of Morsi. The new president, perhaps blinded by the miraculous victory of his movement, refused to see the chasm opening between the regime and the people, and arrogantly swept aside the warnings of an increasingly worried army.
In the end, the generals felt they had to intervene. Suddenly the Brotherhood and other militant Islamist groups such as the Salafists find themselves pushed aside.
One cannot overestimate the depth of the political divide in the country; to an extent it overshadows the revolution that toppled Mubarak. In January 2011, the goal was to get rid of a dictator and to elect through free elections a new government that would steer the country towards democracy and modernism. Today, we are witnessing a bitter cultural and religious fight which threatens the very foundations of Egypt.
Muslims make up 80 percent of the population, but most of them do not want to live in a country under Shari’a.
They want a better life and are not interested in a revival of the caliphate.
A compromise could easily be reached, as expressed by the Arab equivalent of “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”: “Religion to God and the country to all.”
The fact is that in the latest mass protests people were no longer calling for economic reforms, but were clamoring for Morsi to get out and for an end to the Brotherhood’s regime.
Morsi tried to the end to claim that having been democratically elected, he was the legitimate ruler of Egypt – and what the army intended was a military coup. He failed to recognize the fact that ultimately, it was the people’s uprising that had brought him to power and that in revolutionary times, legitimacy remains vested in the people. The young revolutionaries understood it very well, and gathered 22 million signatures on the petition asking for the ousting of a president elected with 13 million votes.
The downfall of the Brotherhood in Egypt is of enormous significance for the movement at large. Throughout the Arab world and in sister organizations in Europe and the US, they had hailed their victory in Egypt as a first step in achieving their ultimate goal of establishing the caliphate. Now, they have to deal with a formidable setback.
Meanwhile in Egypt, the Brothers and their allies are still reeling from the shock. Yet the fight is not over, and they will try to claw their way back. The opposition is far from being united and more turmoil could lie ahead.
However, Egypt has weathered worse storms in its long history.
Hopefully, a stable government may rise in the not-too-distant future.

*The writer, a fellow of The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is a former ambassador to Romania, Egypt and Sweden.

Silently counting our blessings

Mohammed Morsi's claim that he led a true democratic regime and that his ouster was illegitimate doesn't hold muster.
The Muslim Brotherhood was no more legitimate than Hosni Mubarak.
Mubarak was overthrown in a revolution that eventually brought Morsi to power. But what goes around comes around, and Morsi has now met the same fate as Mubarak.
The ink is not yet dry on the declaration of a new government in Egypt and almost no one knows how to pronounce the interim president's name. The U.N. secretary-general and the U.S. were quick to demand that the Egyptian military return power to civilian hands. That is the definite goal, and there is certainly no other path. But what is vital now is to distance the Muslim Brotherhood from the corridors of power in Egypt, as the Muslim Brotherhood poses the real threat to democracy both in Egypt and across the Middle East.
There has never been a truly democratic regime in Egypt. A majority of the Egyptian people may honestly support Gamal Abdel Nasser in retrospect, but he died in 1970. Violence has been part of all of the unrest in Egypt in recent years, so why are people so alarmed now? And why doesn't the U.S. understand that President Barack Obama significantly undermined Egypt's political stability with the speech on Islam he delivered in Cairo in 2009? The U.S. should let responsible entities in Egypt (namely, the military, liberals and moderate religious figures) bring the situation in Egypt back to normal.
Time must be given to the new regime -- the current interim military one and the democratic one after elections are held -- to implement a plan to restore the Egyptian economy. In another year or two, demonstrators will again fill Tahrir Square and another false prophet will step forward with promises to produce food and jobs out of thin air.
Israel will be watching developments in Egypt in the near future. Israel must remain passive and silently cheer on anything that weakens religious radicals, whether they be Sunnis in Egypt or Shiites in Iran. In this respect, what happened in Egypt this week was very positive.
There is also a chance that the interim government in Egypt will step up the fight against Islamic terrorist groups located in the Sinai Peninsula. However, it is too early to tell whether this will take place.
Israel is maintaining its right to remain silent regarding the situation in Egypt, but the revolution that took place this week certainly was a blessing for Israel. If the revolution spreads and brings down the Muslim Brotherhood in other countries in the region, it will be a double blessing.

Saturday, July 06, 2013

Tell President Obama to stand up for what is good for America -- not for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood!

From Secure America Now, 6 July 2013:

A year ago, President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton abandoned Egyptian democrats by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt's national elections. This lead to the election of Mohamed Morsi, a rabid opponent of Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and the West. In addition, Morsi called Jews the descendants of Apes and Pigs.
President Obama applauded Morsi's election as President of Egypt.
Obama showered Morsi's Egypt with American financial aid and recently awarded the Morsi regime advanced military equipment.
Anti-Morsi Protests
The Obama Administration closed its eyes to Morsi's corruption and incompetence. The Administration took no action when Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood physically brutalized Egypt's Coptic Christians -- leading to the deaths of many innocents.
While Obama's Administration supported Morsi as he moved toward silencing his opponents, the Egyptian people rose up against the dictatorial Morsi rule.
Millions of Egyptians marched against and brought down the Morsi government. Morsi has been disposed of, but President Obama is still defending him and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Yesterday, President Obama demanded that Morsi be reinstated as President of Egypt.
This is incredible. The United States should be on the side of defending the oppressed and not supporting their oppressors.
When Christians were being assaulted by Morsi's thugs, President Obama was silent. For some reason our President insists on supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.
We do not know what will happen in Egypt, but we know that an Egypt without the Muslim Brotherhood in control is a friendlier one, to both the United States and Israel.
Tell President Obama to stand up for what is good for America -- not for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood!


USA: take your great experiment in democracy somewhere else.

From Spengler, 4 July 2013, by David Goldman:
Why can’t we get 14 million people into the streets to proclaim that Obama is an idiot like the Egyptians did?
Over at ZeroHedge, Jim Quinn posts pictures of the banners in the mass demonstrations. They are inspiring.
One read: “Obama you jerk, Muslim Brotherhoods are killing the Egyptians, so how come they can guarantee you the security of Israel. Hey Obama, your deal with the Muslim Brotherhood is unsuccessful. Obama you idiot, Keep in mind that Egypt is not Muslim brotherhoods and if you don’t believe that go and see what’s happening in Tahrir Square now.”
Another reads, “Obama, your bitch is our dictator.”
A picture of Hillary Clinton read, “Hayzaboon [ogre] go home.”
Many banners simply read, “Obama supports terrorism.”
Others were too harsh to mention in a family site.
Happy 4th of July!
...Starvation is the unstated subject of this week’s military coup.
For the past several months, the bottom half of Egypt’s population has had little to eat besides government-subsidized bread, and now the bread supply is threatened by a shortage of imported wheat. Despite $8 billion of aid from Qatar and smidgens from Libya, Turkey, and others, Egypt is struggling to meet a financing gap of perhaps $20 billion a year, made worse by the collapse of its major cash earner — the tourist industry. Malnutrition is epidemic in the form of extreme protein deficiency in a country where 40% of the adult population is already “stunted” by poor diet, according to the World Food Program. It is not that hard to get 14 million people into the streets if there is nothing to eat at home.
Nearly half of Egyptians are illiterate. Seventy percent of them live on the land, yet the country imports half its food. Its only cash-earning industry, namely tourism, is in ruins. Sixty years of military dictatorship have left it with college graduates unfit for the world market, and a few t-shirt factories turning Asian polyester into cut-rate exports. It cannot feed itself and it cannot earn enough to feed itself, as I have explained in a series of recent articles. Someone has to subsidize them, or a lot of them will starve. Unlike Mexico, Egypt can’t ship its rural poor to industrial nations in the north.
Egypt’s people embraced the military because they remember that the military used to feed them. In fact, the military probably can alleviate the food crisis, because — unlike the Muslim Brotherhood– Egypt’s generals should be able to count on the support of Saudi Arabia. Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz congratulated Egypt’s military-appointed interim president on Wednesday night, while the United Arab Emirates expressed “satisfaction” at the course of events. Only the crazy emir of Qatar, the patron of al-Jazeera television and an assortment of Islamist ideologues, had backed the Brotherhood — and his son replaced him last week. The Saudi monarchy hates the Brotherhood the way Captain Hook hated the crocodile: it is the only political force capable of overthrowing the monarchy and replacing it.
Former President Morsi seized power from the military in August 2012, the day that the visiting emir of Qatar appeared in Cairo with a $2 billion pledge to the regime. At the time I warned (in a note for the Gatestone Institute) that “Qatar’s check to the Muslim Brotherhood makes Egyptian stability less likely.” I argued at the time:
Qatar’s $2 billion is a drop in the bucket; it just replaces the reserves that Egypt lost last month. So is a $3.5 billion IMF loan, under discussion for a year. The Obama administration has been telling people quietly that the Saudis will step in to bail out Egypt, but the Qatari intervention makes this less likely. The eccentric and labile Emir is the Muslim Brotherhood’s biggest supporter; its spiritual leader, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (who supports suicide bombings against Israel) lived in exile during the Mubarak regime. Qatar funds al-Jazeera television, the modern face of Islamism. The Saudis hate and fear the Brotherhood, which wants to overthrow the Saudi Monarchy and replace it with a modern Islamist totalitarian political party. Qatar has only about $30 billion in reserves and can’t sustain Egypt for long.
Qatar is something of a wild card: it is ruled by an Emir without even the checks and balances that arise from having a large family behind a monarchy, as in Saudi Arabia. The whimsical Emir just bought the Italian firm of Valentino as a gift for his fashion-conscious second wife — not a dress, but the entire company. His support evidently emboldened the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to take on the military in the aftermath of the Sinai crisis. But that makes stability in Egypt less rather than more likely, because it gives the Saudis, the only funder capable of bailing out Egypt, reason to stand aside.
Qatar has spent nearly a third of its foreign exchange reserves in a Quixotic effort to project power in Egypt, which might explain why the old emir abdicated in favor of his son. With the Muslim Brotherhood out of the way in Egypt, the Saudis have uncontested influence with the military. Presumably the military will suppress the Brotherhood unless it chooses to dissolve spontaneously. No one should mourn the Brotherhood, a totalitarian organization with a Nazi past and an extreme anti-Semitic ideology.
The notion that this band of Jew-hating jihadi thugs might become the vehicle for a transition to a functioning Muslim democracy was perhaps the stupidest notion to circulate in Washington in living memory.
The Saudis have another reason to get involved in Egypt, and that is the situation in Syria. Saudi Arabia’s intervention in the Syrian civil war, now guided by Prince Bandar, the new chief of Saudi Intelligence, has a double problem. The KSA wants to prevent Iran from turning Syria into a satrapy and fire base, but fears that the Sunni jihadists to whom it is sending anti-aircraft missiles eventually might turn against the monarchy. The same sort of blowback afflicted the kingdom after the 1980s Afghan war, in the person of Osama bin Laden. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been fighting for influence among Syria’s Sunni rebels (as David Ottaway reported earlier this week at National Interest). Cutting off the Muslim Brotherhood at the knees in Egypt will help the KSA limit potential blowback in Syria.
Egypt probably can be kept on life support for about $10 billion a year in foreign subsidies, especially if the military regime can restore calm and bring the tourists back (although that is a big “if” — one of President Morsi’s last acts was to appoint as governor of Luxor province an associate of the Islamist terrorists who massacred 62 tourists in Luxor in 1997). With about $630 billion in foreign exchange reserves, Saudi Arabia can carry Egypt for a couple of years while the Syrian crisis plays out. Saudi Arabia also has covered a good part of Turkey’s huge payments deficit during the past couple of years, which means that Ankara will dance to Riyadh’s tune.
This is the background to the Saudi monarch’s enthusiastic statement of congratulations to the Egyptian military, released almost immediately after the takeover was announced:
In my own name and on behalf of the people of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, I congratulate you on assuming the leadership of Egypt at this critical point of its history,” said the king in a cable carried by the Saudi Press Agency (SPA). “By doing so, I appeal to Allah Almighty to help you to shoulder the responsibility laid on your shoulder to achieve the hopes of our sisterly people of the Arab Republic of Egypt.
At the same time, we strongly shake hands with the men of all the armed forces, represented by General Abdel Fattah al-Sissi, who managed to save Egypt at this critical moment from a dark tunnel God only could apprehend its dimensions and repercussions, but the wisdom and moderation came out of those men to preserve the rights of all parties in the political process.
Please accept our greetings to you and deep respect to our brothers in Egypt and its people, wishing Egypt steady stability and security.
I expect Saudi Arabia to offer Egypt subsidized oil as well as cash for urgent food purchases, allowing the military to appear as national saviors — at least for the time being. It is not clear what the Muslim Brotherhood will do, but apart from seeking martyrdom, there is not much that it can do.
In the Beltway, to be sure, the same folk on left and right who thought the “Arab Spring” would usher in a golden era of Muslim democracy are wringing their hands over the tragic fate of Egypt’s first democratically elected government. These include Republicans as well as Democrats, whom I qualified as “Dumb and Dumber” in a May 20 essay for Tablet. The sequel — call it “Dumb and Dumberer” — is still playing on CNN and Fox News. No matter: the important matters are now in the competent hands of Prince Bandar, whose judgment I prefer to that of John Kerry or Susan Rice or John McCain any day of the week. The best-case scenario would be for the grown-ups in the region to ignore the blandishments of the Obama administration as well as the advice of the Republican establishment, and to do what they have to do regardless.
Americans who want to conduct a great experiment in democracy will have to take their laboratory somewhere else.

Friday, July 05, 2013

One round of free elections does not constitute democracy

 
Lt. Gen. Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, center, flanked by military and civilian leaders in including reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei, far left, Tamarod leader Mahmoud Badr, second left and Pope Tawadros II, second from right, as he addresses the nation on Egyptian State Television Wednesday, July 3 (photo credit: AP/Egyptian State Television) 
 
The statement issued Wednesday evening by Egypt’s Defense Minister Abdel Fattah al-Sisi confirmed the expectations of the last few days: the army, backed by the masses, had carried out a coup.
Yes, tens of millions had taken to the streets in recent days, illustrating just how badly the majority of the population wanted to see president Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood out of office. But Morsi was installed just a year ago, having been democratically elected. And he was overthrown by the military.  
Several major figures in Egypt’s political system sat next to al-Sisi when he delivered his statement — among them
  • former International Atomic Energy Agency head (and would-be president) Mohamed ElBaradei,
  • Coptic Pope Tawadros II, and
  • Al-Azhar University President Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb.
But to the left of al-Sisi, slightly behind him, sat a young, bespectacled, long-haired man to whom the defense minister owes the takeover. This man,
  • Mahmoud al-Aziz, was the representative of Tamarod (the revolution) a group that began operating only two months ago.
Tamarod succeeded where opposition politicians had long failed and led protests unprecedented in size that eventually resulted in Morsi’s ouster.
For al-Sisi, it was the speech of a lifetime. He started off by explaining that the military’s High Command had tried several times, to no avail, to reason with the presidency to accept the “people’s” terms. And therefore, he explained, it had been decided to present the “road map” to get Egypt out of its crisis.
The Egyptian general, who has yet to turn 60 and was appointed by Morsi to the job just 11 months ago, has been transformed into Egypt’s strongman. He is the one who appointed Supreme Constitutional Court chairman Adli Mansour as interim president. And he is also the one who will dictate the spirit of the new constitution and set the date for new elections. Mansour is expected to be sworn in and take on presidential authorities, alongside al-Sisi and the army, on Thursday.
Meanwhile, the army has isolated Morsi and banned senior Muslim Brotherhood officials from leaving the country. Wednesday evening also saw the closure of some of the television networks associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. It appears that al-Sisi, like a good military man, does not dally but, rather, charges with full force in order to eliminate the enemy.
Yet the enemy, as far as al-Sisi and much of Egypt are concerned, is impossible to eliminate. At best it can be temporarily reduced in scale. In order to ensure the defense minister’s move is a success, he needs the cooperation of the Muslim Brotherhood, or at least some of the Islamists.
For now the ball is in “al-Ahwan’s” (the Brotherhood’s) court. If it consents to Morsi’s ouster, it may even win the next presidential elections with a more effective candidate. If it refuses and orders its followers to battle the new regime, Egypt may spiral into a bloody cycle of violence.
Morsi, minutes before he was removed by the army to a secure place, was able to smuggle out his reaction speech, in which he made clear that he refused to accept the military’s takeover. “I will not accept this attempt to take us backwards,” he said. Morsi called on the army to resume its traditional role of protecting the people. “I am the elected president of Egypt,” the Islamist politician said. “It is now demanded of the people to defend this legitimacy and … for legitimacy to be constitutional,” he added, saying that he was willing to call for new elections, but only for the parliament.
It was too little, too late. Five people were quickly reported killed Wednesday evening in clashes between supporters and opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood, and they are not likely to be the last casualties.
Morsi’s ouster and the success of the secular protest in its clash with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt may presage the fall from power of other Islamist movements in the region, like Tunisia and Gaza.
In Tunisia, a protest against the Islamist constitution has already gotten underway.
But for Hamas, the news out of Cairo Wednesday night was especially grim. The Palestinian organization is losing its most substantial ally, one that gave it vital political support. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’s parent organization and in many ways its “Godfather,” lost its power to a military establishment that is hostile to the Palestinian group’s goals.
Hamas, which has clashed with Syria and Iran over the course of the last year, now finds itself nearly isolated in the Arab sphere. Perhaps the new reality in which it finds itself will lead the weakened Hamas to conclude its reunification with Fatah.
Time will tell. As of Wednesday night, all eyes were focused on Egypt, where the short-lived presidency of Mohammed Morsi underlined, in case anyone was still in doubt, that the holding of one round of free elections does not constitute a transition to democracy.
 

A forgotten refugee

From Israel Today, 24 May 2013:

Dina Ovadia, today a soldier in the IDF Spokesperson Unit, was born in Egypt not knowing she was Jewish until the age of 15. In an emotional interview published on the IDF website, Ovadia spoke about her childhood in Alexandria, the earthshaking event that changed her life, the discovery of her Jewish identity, and her immigration to Israel and integration into local society.

Follow the link for the whole story.

A Jewish Family's Emotional and Harrowing Exodus from Egypt
Dina Ovadia, today a soldier in the IDF Spokesperson Unit – Photo courtesy: IDF Spokesperson Unit

Morsi Is Taken Into Military Custody

From the New York Times, 3 July 2013, by *:

CAIRO — Egypt’s military officers removed the country’s first democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi, on Wednesday, suspended the Constitution and installed an interim government presided over by a senior jurist.
Tahrir Square, where tens of thousands of opponents of the government had gathered each night since Sunday to demand Mr. Morsi’s removal, erupted in fireworks and jubilation at news of the ouster. At a square near the presidential palace where Mr. Morsi’s Islamist supporters had gathered, men broke into tears and vowed to stay until he was reinstated or they were forcibly removed. “The dogs have done it and made a coup against us,” they chanted. “Dying for the sake of God is more sublime than anything,” a speaker declared.
Mr. Morsi rejected the generals’ actions as a “complete military coup.”
Military vehicles and soldiers in riot gear had surrounded the rally in the hours before the takeover, and tensions escalated through the night. Within hours, at least seven people had died and more than 300 were injured in clashes in 17 provinces between Mr. Morsi’s supporters and either civilian opponents or security forces.
By the end of the night, Mr. Morsi was in military custody and blocked from all communications, one of his advisers said, and many of his senior aides were under house arrest. Egyptian security forces had arrested at least 38 senior leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, including Saad el-Katatni, the chief of the group’s political party, and others were being rounded up as well, security officials said. No immediate reasons were given for the detentions.
For Mr. Morsi, it was a bitter and ignominious end to a tumultuous year of bruising political battles that ultimately alienated millions of Egyptians. Having won a narrow victory, his critics say, he broke his promises of an inclusive government and repeatedly demonized his opposition as traitors. With the economy crumbling, and with shortages of electricity and fuel, anger at the government mounted.
The generals built their case for intervention in a carefully orchestrated series of maneuvers, calling their actions an effort at a “national reconciliation” and refusing to call their takeover a coup. At a televised news conference late on Wednesday night, Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi said that the military had no interest in politics and was ousting Mr. Morsi because he had failed to fulfill “the hope for a national consensus.”
The general stood on a broad stage, flanked by Egypt’s top Muslim and Christian clerics as well as a spectrum of political leaders including Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Prize-winning diplomat and liberal icon, and Galal Morra, a prominent Islamist ultraconservative, or Salafi, all of whom endorsed the takeover.
Despite their protestations, the move plunged the generals back to the center of political power for the second time in less than three years, following their ouster of President Hosni Mubarak in 2011. Their return threatened to cast a long shadow over future efforts to fulfill that revolution’s promise of a credible, civilian democracy. But General Sisi sought to present a very different image from the anonymous, numbered communiqués from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces that were solemnly read over state television to announce Mr. Mubarak’s exit, and the general emphasized that the military had no desire to rule.
“The armed forces was the one to first announce that it is out of politics,” General Sisi said at the start. “It still is, and it will remain away from politics.”
Under a “road map” for a post-Morsi government devised by a meeting of civilian, political and religious leaders, the general said, the Constitution would be suspended, the chief justice of the Supreme Constitutional Court, Adli Mansour, would become acting president, and plans would be expedited for new parliamentary and presidential elections under an interim government.
At the White House, President Obama urged the military to move quickly to return Egypt to a democratically elected government, saying, “We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Egyptian Armed Forces to remove President Morsi and suspend the Egyptian Constitution.” The president notably did not refer to the military’s takeover as a coup — a phrase that would have implications for the $1.3 billion a year in American military aid to Egypt.
Still, there was no mistaking the threat of force and signs of a crackdown. Armored military vehicles rolled through the streets of the capital, surrounded the presidential palace and ringed in the Islamists. The intelligence services put travel bans on Mr. Morsi and other top Brotherhood leaders. The Brotherhood’s satellite television network was removed from the air along with two other popular Islamist channels. The police arrested at least two prominent Islamist television hosts and many others who worked at those channels, as well as people who worked at a branch of the Al Jazeera network considered sympathetic to Mr. Morsi, security officials said. And state television resumed denouncing the Brotherhood as it once did under Mr. Mubarak.
Moments after the General Sisi spoke late Wednesday, Mr. Morsi released a short video over a presidential Web site delivering a final, fiery speech denouncing the ouster. “I am the elected president of Egypt,” he declared. “I am ready to sit down and for everybody to sit with me and to negotiate with everybody.”
“The revolution is being stolen from us,” he repeated.
Minutes later, the Web site was shut down, the video disappeared and he e-mailed journalists a statement “as the president of the Republic and the Chief Commander of the Armed Forces” urging all to follow the rules of the recently approved Constitution. Then he called the takeover “a complete military coup which is categorically rejected by all the free people of the country who have struggled so that Egypt turns into a civil democratic society.”
And in a sign of how little Mr. Morsi ever managed to control the Mubarak bureaucracy he took over, the officers of the Presidential Guard who had been assigned to protect him also burst into celebration, waving flags from the roof of the palace.
Although the tacit control of the generals over Egyptian politics is now unmistakable, General Sisi laid out a more detailed and faster plan for a return to civilian governance than the now-retired generals who deposed Mr. Mubarak did two years ago. General Sisi made no mention of any period of military rule and granted the acting president, Mr. Mansour, the power to issue “constitutional decrees” during the transition.
Mr. Mansour was named to the bench by Mr. Mubarak two decades ago, before Mr. Mubarak sought to pack the court with more overtly political loyalists or anti-Islamists. Mr. Mansour ascended to the post of chief only a few days ago and, while he is said to be highly regarded, not much is known of his views or how much authority he will truly wield.
General Sisi called for the formation of a “technocratic government” to administer affairs during the transition and also of a politically diverse committee of experts to draft constitutional amendments. It was not clear who would form the government or the committee. The general said that the constitutional court would set the rules for the parliamentary and presidential elections, and the court would also “put forward a code of ethics to guarantee freedom of the press and achieve professionalism and credibility” in the news media.
The general’s plan bore a close resemblance to one proposed in recent days by the ultraconservative Islamist Nour Party, and suggested that he was seeking to bring in at least some Islamists as well as liberals and leftists to support the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Nour Party, which quickly endorsed the plan, had joined other political groups in accusing Mr. Morsi and the Brotherhood of monopolizing power at the price of a dangerous political polarization.
But unlike liberals, the ultraconservative Islamists were keen to avoid the installation of a liberal like Mr. ElBaradei as a transitional prime minister, or to see the current Constitution — with its prominent recognition of Islamic law — scrapped instead of revised. It was unclear if the generals planned to allow the Brotherhood to compete in parliamentary elections and potentially retake its dominant role in the legislature, which could give it the ability to name a new prime minister.
Brotherhood leaders urged Islamists to resist. “The people will not surrender,” Essam el-Erian, a senior Brotherhood political leader, declared on the group’s satellite channel before it disappeared from the air. “The military will reach the point when the conflict is no longer between political opponents. Instead the military will be in confrontation with a large sector of the people — I daresay the bigger part.”

*Reporting was contributed by Kareem Fahim, Mayy El Sheikh and Ben Hubbard from Cairo; Mark Landler from Washington; Alan Cowell from London; and Mona El-Naggar from New York.

Thursday, July 04, 2013

Obama apprently supports the Muslim Brotherhood

From Commentary, 3 July 2013, by :

Late Wednesday afternoon, the silence from the White House about events in Egypt finally ended. In a statement, President Obama claimed that he is neutral on the question of who controls Egypt but wishes to uphold certain principles. The text contains anodyne proclamations about democracy and the participation of all groups in the government of Egypt that are unexceptionable. But it also clearly states that the president is “deeply concerned” about the ouster of Morsi and the suspension of the Egyptian constitution that brought him to power, calls upon the military not to arrest the deposed leader or other Muslim Brotherhood officials, and then pointedly says that he has “directed the relevant departments and agencies to review the implications under U.S. law for our assistance to the Government of Egypt.”
In other words, you don’t have to read too closely between the lines to understand that Obama is angrier about regime change in Cairo than he ever was about the Islamist attempt to remake Egypt in their own image.
President Obama stood by passively for a year as Morsi and the Brotherhood began to seize total power, repress critics and pave the way for a complete transformation of Egypt into an Islamist state without threatening a cutoff of U.S. aid. Now Obama has finally found the guts to use America’s leverage over the country but only to register his protest against the downfall of the Brotherhood.
This will do nothing to help Morsi and the rest of his authoritarian crew that had already topped the excesses of the Mubarak regime in only a year. The Egyptian military knows–despite the attempt of the Brotherhood to sell the West on the myth that a fascist-style movement like their brand of Islamistm is democratic in nature–that the only way to prevent it from fomenting violence is to use the same tactics it wanted to employ against Morsi’s critics.
But by doing so in this manner, the president has made it clear again to the Egyptian people that his sympathies are not with those who want a government that doesn’t wish to impose Islamism on the country or the minority that actually want democracy but with Morsi and the Brotherhood. Rather than repair the damage he has done in the last three years, the president sounds as if he is determined to double down on his mistakes.

Only Fundamentalism or Force: in Egypt too?


The latest events in Egypt confirm one of the salient patterns that have governed the upheavals in the Arab world of the last years. This is the troubling but unmistakable fact that despite all the chatter about peoples’ power, democracy, civil society and the rest of it, when it comes to the real, grown-up exercise of political power in the countries in question, there remain only two contenders: the forces of political Islam, and the armed forces of the ancien regime.
That this is so seems empirically irrefutable – from Algeria to Gaza, via Syria and Egypt ...
What is currently taking place in Egypt is a military coup in all but name. The army – the force through which Mubarak, Sadat and Nasir governed – is mobilizing to end the one year rule of the Muslim Brotherhood. It remains to be seen whether Mohammed Morsi and his comrades will yield to this mobilization, or attempt to resist it.
If they attempt the latter, Egypt will stand before a situation analogous to that of Algeria in 1991, when the regime’s military sought to annul the election victory of the Islamist FIS movement. The result was a bloody civil war which in retrospect may be seen as the precursor of what is now taking place in Syria, and what may now lie ahead in Egypt.
If, on the other hand, the Brotherhood choose to acquiesce to the demands of the military, then President Morsi’s remark that this will represent the reversal of the 2011 revolution is entirely correct. What will transpire will be military rule, presumably with a few civilian figureheads placed on the mast to enable the west to pretend that it is something else.
...What are the factors which time and time again prevent the emergence of a muscular, representative, civilian and secular politics in the Arab world?
A politics of this type, which can combine the readiness for the use of force with a commitment to the open society seems to me to be the foundation stone for workable democracy. 
In my own country, Israel, it very clearly exists. The primordial call of Jewish identity is the bedrock on which the democratic structure stands and is defensible and defended. Take away the former, and the latter would soon fall too.
Now the willingness to use force in order to defend rests at root always on something ‘irrational’, ie deeper than profit-loss, self-interested thinking. It must by necessity do so, since by engagement in such activity, the individual increases the possibility of his or her own early extinction. The ‘trick’ for making the open society work and be defensible seems to me the ability to combine or harmonize this deeper, non-rational layer of human motivation with the entirely rational commitment to institutions, structures, checks, balances and so on.
In the highly populated countries of the Arab world... liberal reformers are quite unable to command the kind of potent loyalties by which movements sustain themselves and win. Today, in Egypt, it is not they who are the real political and military actors. The required levels of commitment exist, solely, in the hands of Islamists on the one hand, and authoritarian nationalists on the other.
For as long as this remains the case, secure, rights based societies are likely to remain elusive in the Arabic-speaking world. But is the reason why it is the case, ultimately, because of powerful, pervasive ideas and practices in these societies which militate against the development of the kind of movements and institutions which could form the basis for a defendable civil society? It may well be. An unreformed, power-oriented religion that commands the deep loyalty of masses of people, and a stress on community security over individual rights would be the most notable factors here. And if it is so, it means that the anger of the populations at mis-managed societies will continue to be mis-directed, and that much remaining strife almost certainly lies ahead.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Most Wanted List of Nazis Shifts With Two More Nabbed

From The New York Forward, June 24, 2013, issue of June 28, 2013, by Anne Cohen:
Video: Nate Lavey

When a recent exposé unmasked a 94-year-old Minneapolis resident as the commander of a Nazi-led unit and as an SS officer during World War II, the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s chief Nazi hunter faced a vexing dilemma: Who should be bumped off the center’s “Most Wanted War Criminals” list next year to make room for him?
Fortunately for him, a spot just opened up. Laszlo Csatary — the longtime top man on the list for his alleged role in deporting 15,700 Jews to Auschwitz from a ghetto in Hungarian-occupied Slovakia — was charged with war crimes in Hungary on June 17. He will be tried within 90 days, at which time his name could be dropped as a wanted Nazi.
Michael Karkoc, a Ukrainian immigrant and retired carpenter, was not even on the list before The Associated Press located him living quietly in Northeast Minneapolis. His discovery, followed by Csatary’s indictment, highlights the sometimes quirky process by which a usually anonymous and elderly individual living quietly somewhere, but with a dark secret, can suddenly find himself posted everywhere as one of the world’s most wanted human rights offenders.
In any given year, who gets bumped “depends on how many people are brought to justice,” explained Efraim Zuroff, the Wiesenthal Center’s chief Nazi hunter. In addition, old Nazi war criminals don’t just fade away; they also die. “Two of those people might pass away this year,” Zuroff said of the present list members. But don’t fear for the list’s demise. Despite the passage of time since World War II, said Zuroff, “There’s no shortage of names, there are plenty of people who should be brought to justice and whose names are known.”
J. Edgar Hoover, who launched the world’s first most wanted list in 1950 with the FBI’s “10 Most Wanted,” may enjoy pride of authorship of this unique publicity and marketing device. But the Wiesenthal Center’s “Most Wanted Nazi War Criminals” is not far behind in terms of prominence.
All of which highlights a series of questions about the state of Nazi hunting some 68 years after the Nazis’ defeat: What does it take to catch a Nazi nowadays? Who makes the list? What kind of heinous act warrants first place? And what happens when someone is brought to justice or dies?
Zuroff, director of the center’s Israel branch, and author of “Operation Last Chance: One Person’s Quest To Bring Nazi Criminals to Justice,” has spent countless hours developing a system to classify the remaining Nazis at large.
The center’s annual list, he said, is not necessarily a roll call in absolute terms of the world’s worst surviving Nazis. Rather, he said, these are “the people we hope will be brought to justice in the coming year.”
Three factors determine where someone falls on the list. The first is command responsibility. For example, Csatary was a senior officer in the Hungarian police force at the time his crimes were committed.
The second determining criterion is whether one personally committed murder. Csatary did not, which brings Zuroff to the third standard: the scope of the crime. “He didn’t commit murder himself,” Zuroff said. “But he was responsible for the death of more than 15,000 people. That gives him top priority.” Csatary, 98, is currently under house arrest in Hungary, awaiting possible extradition to Slovakia to stand trial.
Zuroff’s main task is pressuring governments into taking action against those whose crimes have already been denounced or exposed. Until that initial exposure, the center has little or no role to play and must rely on individual government agencies. The case of Csatary, pursued from beginning to end by Zuroff and his team, is an exception. “That’s our victory!” Zuroff exclaimed when asked about the news.  
        

 
Kurt Hoffman


Rosenbaum has been hunting Nazis since 1979, when, as a law student, he saw a newspaper advertisement announcing the creation of a Justice Department unit that would pursue Nazi war criminals living in the United States.
Thirty-four years later, in what he calls “a summer internship gone awry,” Rosenbaum is still at it — the longest-running investigator of human rights violators living in the United States in the Justice Department’s history. Five of the 10 names on Zuroff’s list are people who were discovered and prosecuted by Rosenbaum’s team.
What sounds like intrepid and adventurous work is actually based on paperwork — a lot of paperwork. In the 1980s, Rosenbaum’s agency, then known as the Office of Special Investigations, built a database of all the people who could reasonably be considered to have had Nazi involvement. This involved, Rosenbaum said, going over more than 70,000 names “in SS records and on Most Wanted lists” and comparing each of those names against immigration records in the United States.
“People that have read too many John le Carré novels think that the way these cases originate is that a survivor recognizes their oppressor on the street. That’s not the reality,” Rosenbaum explained. “I wish it were more like television.”
From a team that numbered 50 strong at its peak, in the 1980s, the number of HRSPS staffers devoted to rooting out Nazi war criminals is now down to 10. For years, the OSI was the only law enforcement agency to have its own team of historians on staff, as well as translators who spoke German, Polish, Hungarian and other languages.
Because the alleged crimes were not perpetrated on American soil, Rosenbaum and his team have no criminal jurisdiction to prosecute. They can only build a civil case for the suspect’s deportation to his country of origin, or to some other country with criminal jurisdiction. In Karkoc’s case there are three possible options: Ukraine, his country of origin; Poland, where he committed the majority of his crimes, and Germany, because he worked under the auspices of the Third Reich.
In the end, like Zuroff, with whom he has a “very good relationship,” Rosenbaum performs work that relies on the willingness of a foreign government to prosecute old men and women for crimes committed more than half a century ago.
“It’s very frustrating,” Rosenbaum admitted. “If you have a low frustration threshold, this is not the work you want to do. The vast majority of the people we have returned to Europe have not been prosecuted.” Formal conviction is rare, he noted.              
Given this reality, Zuroff has carved out a six-level scale of achievement for gauging his own success.
The first step is to expose the criminals publicly. “That is the most painful punishment for the criminals, because a lot of the time, their families have no idea what they did during the war,” Zuroff explained.
If an official investigation is launched, that is a second step. An indictment or extradition is a third. If a country is really determined, the case might go to trial. And in rare cases, the criminals are convicted and finally punished.
“It’s very hard to get to six,” Zuroff said. In part because of a lack of political will in many of the European countries where these people reside, but also because of the advanced age of the criminals in question.
“We’re running out of time,” Zuroff explained. “Do you know soccer? After 90 minutes are over, the referee decides how much time to add because of delays and injuries. You can win a game or lose a game in those extra minutes. So, we’re in injury time.”
In 2002 this urgency led Zuroff to help launch an initiative offering cash rewards for information leading to the indictment and/or conviction of Nazi war criminals. Operation Last Chance, a project dreamed up by Aryeh Rubin, a Florida-based investor, and run by Zuroff and his office, offers would-be tipsters up to $33,400 for such information. Csatary’s exposure and subsequent prosecution is a direct result of this campaign. A partial reward has been paid to his informant, with the rest pending on the verdict and eventual sentence he receives at trial.
From the 2002 launch of Operation Last Chance, until December 2011, the center received 635 tips about alleged Nazis. Of these, 105 suspects were subject to prosecutions by respective governments. During this period, Zuroff has given out a total of $10,000 in reward money to two information sources, one in Croatia, the other in Hungary. In December 2011, the second phase of the project, known as Operation Last Chance II, was launched in Germany, funded jointly by Rubin and U.S. investor Steven Mizel, with the promise of higher rewards for information.
According to Zuroff, while the United States has the political will to deport suspected Nazi war criminals, countries like Hungary and Lithuania have good reasons to stall actual prosecution efforts. In Eastern Europe, the role of local government collaborators included “active participation in mass murder,” Zuroff said. “The Nazis integrated the local population in the mechanisms.”
Beyond Zuroff and Rubin’s rewards program, the time, money and effort spent by the Justice Department and the Wiesenthal Center to pursue Nazi war criminals are considerable.
But, with almost all of the senior Nazi war criminals long captured or dead, those on the Most Wanted list today tend to have ranked relatively low in the Nazi war machine. There simply are no more Eichmanns or Mengeles. Alois Brunner one of Eichmann’s top aides, fled to Syria after World War II and formally remains on the list — but, born in 1912 and not seen since 2001, he is in a special section with an asterisk next to his name, because even Zuroff concedes that now he is almost surely dead.
These realities lead some to question this allocation of resources.
“I wouldn’t be so hung up about the age,” said Ruth Bettina Birn, a former colleague of Rosenbaum’s and former chief historian of the War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Section of Canada’s Ministry of Justice. “But are there still people who are significant?….There is no one who is a decision maker.”
In 2008, when Csatary’s true identity was uncovered in Hungary, Holocaust historian Laszlo Karsai, a son of Holocaust survivors, made an additional argument that prosecuting these men has become a waste of resources and time. “Csatáry was a small fish,” he told the BBC. “The money spent hunting down people like him would be better spent fighting the propaganda of those who so energetically deny the Holocaust today.”
Zuroff counters that through their pursuit of these elderly men, he and other activists are also doing what Karsai demands. The ongoing investigations, he said, serve as an effective tool against Holocaust denial.
Beyond that, “the passage of time in no way diminishes the guilt of the killer,” Zuroff said. “Just because these people are old does not turn them into righteous gentiles. Our obligation is to the victims; [prosecution] sends a powerful message to those who perpetrate terrible crimes.”
Contact Anne Cohen at cohen@forward.com

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Iran's President Rouhani: sometimes the bull wins the bullfight

From the Times of Israel, 22 June 2013, by Emanuele Ottolenghi*:

...Last Friday’s victory by former Iranian nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rouhani, probably came as a surprise for the regime, despite the carefully choreographed election process that ensured all candidates were unswerving regime loyalists. If nothing else, it vindicates Western pressure on the regime and proves that if Iran is to be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons, sanctions’ pressure must relentlessly continue.
Hopeful early commentary of Rouhani’s success focuses on his supposedly reformist credentials, forgetting that albeit unintentionally, Rouhani represents a propitious star alignment for the regime. After all, Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, had Rouhani appointed head of the Supreme National Security Council in the 1990’s and later to the Expediency Council. A product of Iran’s clerical establishment who spent most of his life dealing with security and intelligence matters – including, possibly, an active role in the systematic murder of regime opponents in the 1990’s – Rouhani is hardly a dissident. He has already distanced himself from the endorsement he received from his reformist predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, by criticizing the radicalism of Khatami’s era. He took pride in his memoirs of deceiving the West during his time as nuclear negotiator. And he has publicly boasted that he sees Pakistan as a model for emulation when it comes to the nuclear question. This is hardly promising for those who see in his election a potential page turner for nuclear negotiations.
This is not to say that Rouhani’s victory was a cunning plot by the regime. He probably won fair and square – for once, the regime realized that it had everything to lose by tampering with the vote.
Voters, having been denied all other choices after the regime disqualified almost all candidates, concentrated their support on the only candidate left standing, who appeared least favored by the Supreme Leader. Their vote is a rejection of the regime’s reckless nuclear policies – both a sign that sanctions are working and that the people by and large blame their rulers.
It is not the first time the regime has let the people choose – it happened in 1997, when reformist cleric Mohammad Khatami won the presidency. Then as now, Iran’s predicament was one of political isolation and economic difficulty. In 1997 oil prices were low and Iran was isolated because of its terrorist activities under former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. In 2013, Iran is subject to severe sanctions and its oil income has decreased significantly.
The regime could not risk a rerun of 2009, when the fraudulent re-election of the Supreme Leader’s preferred candidate, then-incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, led to one of the biggest domestic challenges to clerical rule since the Revolution in 1979. Four years later, elections seem to show that Iranians of all walks of life are losing their patience with the regime. Even the poorer, the rural countryside and the more traditionalist base appear to have thrown their support for Rouhani. Aware that regime support was hemorrhaging heavily, Khamenei must have resigned himself to Rouhani, as any major fraud could lead to another uprising except, this time, it would engulf the entire country.
Keenly aware of the growing international isolation Iran experiences and the attendant economic hardship it suffers due to sanctions, Iran’s rulers need someone who can turn the page, both domestically and internationally, to restore enough breathing space for their policies. As sanctions continue to bite into Iran’s oil revenues and access to the international financial system, reconciling Iran’s nuclear ambitions with the danger of internal collapse under economic pressure has become a perilous business. Allowing Rouhani to win, despite the ferocious criticism conservative media poured on him in the run-up to the vote, shows that the Supreme Leader presently sees the advantage of a ‘moderate’ rising to the presidency.
After all, the president will not have a free hand in making policy but his accession to power will buy Iran time.
Having Rouhani as Iran’s public international face may drive a wedge within Western countries on the nuclear issue just long enough for the regime to cross the finish line. Allowing him to run the country’s domestic affairs may placate internal dissent. And if Rouhani – who already asked for it – manages to squeeze sanctions’ relief from his Western interlocutors, the regime will have squared the circle. While it is still too early to draw a clear picture of why Khamenei let people choose Rouhani, the magic combination of low oil income, international isolation and military threats offers a plausible explanation.
The real glimmer of hope one must draw from Rouhani’s victory, then, is not that reform and compromise are finally on their way. Rather, this is a vote of no confidence in the system, proof that most Iranians do not care about the nuclear program and conclusive vindication, if any was still needed, that Western sanctions’ policy has undermined the regime beyond all predictions.
It is not time to waiver then – more pressure can bring this regime to its knees – and who knows, as Rouhani succumbs to a system he has no desire to dismantle, maybe Iranians will conclude that no improvement will come their way until they square off with this regime once and for all.

*This article was co-authored by Saeed Ghasseminejad, a Ph.D. candidate at Baruch College, in New York City

The Irena Sendler Project

The Lowell Milken Center's (LMC) Unsung Heroes project is continuing its decade-long program of encouraging young learners to create, develop, research and submit projects that honor unsung heroes. The program offers an annual prize to students who create quality award-winning material about a historical personality who made a positive impact on the world.
The first LCM Unsung Heroes project was created in 1999 by a group of Kansas City school girls who had heard vague rumors about a Polish woman who had saved over 2500 Jewish children from the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII. The girls' work brought the activities of Irena Sendler* and her Zagota (underground) comrades out into the open, ensuring that her heroic actions would become part of the historical record. Due to the research project and the resulting Lowell Milken Center Award the story of Irena Sendler has reached thousands of people through a performance that tells of the events as well as a subsequent book and website.
 
See here and here for previous postings about Irena Sendler.

Irena Sendler was a young Polish social worker when the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939. She joined the Zagota, an underground unit that was specifically devoted to helping Jews escape from the German dragnet, and between 1939 and 1941 she and her comrades helped to forge documents and find safe hiding places for hundreds of fleeing Jews.
In 1941, when the Warsaw Ghetto was established Sendler obtained documents that would allow her to enter the ghetto with food and medicines. She quickly ascertained that the Germans' ultimate intention would involve destroying the ghetto and murdering all of the Jews and she determined to save, in whatever time remained, as many lives as possible.
Sendler felt that it was easiest to smuggle children out of the ghetto and she began to do so, bringing them out by hiding them in toolboxes, bags, luggage and even under garbage carts or under piles of rags with barking dogs on top. She identified a network of hidden tunnels and sewers which she used to smuggle many of the children out. "I talked the mothers out of their children" Sendler later said, describing the heartwrenching scenes that she had to endure, day after day, as she separated the parents from their children.
Once on the "safe" side of the wall Sendler and other Zagota members placed the children in convents, orphanages and with families for safekeeping. She kept careful track of the children's names and their placements and extracted promises from the children's guardians that they would allow the children to return to their families and Jewish community after the war. Sendler placed these lists in glass jars which she buried in her neighbor's garden.
In October 1943 the Gestapo arrested Sendler. She endured horrendous torture but she never revealed the identities of her comrades or the locations of any of "her" children. She was freed by a bribed German guard as she was being led to her execution.
Sendler's actions are now being publicized by LMC as the "Life in a Jar" project. LMC was started by Lowell Milken a Jewish businessman from the early childhood education industry and promotes the stories of unknown heroes including a number of Holocaust heroes.

Israel's Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace

This 5-minute video, first published by JCPA on 25 May 2010, is even more relevant today than ever before:


Israel, in any future agreement with the Palestinians, has a critical need for defensible borders. This video outlines the threats to Israel from terrorist rockets, ballistic missiles, and conventional ground and air threats from the east.

See more - http://www.defensibleborders.org/secu...